boyscout399
Regular Member
Easy question with an easy answer, if he attacks you, you use a degree of justifiable force necessary to prevent the unlawful assault.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Anyone encounter this situation
- Thread starter sigrscu
- Start date
Easy question with an easy answer, if he attacks you, you use a degree of justifiable force necessary to prevent the unlawful assault.
HankT
State Researcher
sultan62
Regular Member
utbagpiper
Banned
No, I believe the unlawful force--the unwanted touching, perhaps what might even be reasonably viewed as an attempt to gain control of the OP's deadly weapon--was started by the teenager who touched/grabbed the firearm.
What is the proper response for a 13 or 14 year old who walks up and grabs your crotch, or your wife's crotch or breasts? Or who walks up and punches you? Are you really going to argue that fondling your firearm or even attempting to gain control of it is any less serious than fondling your or your wife's/daughter's groin or breasts, or landing a punch?
I should think that in any of these cases a slap on the hand and a stern verbal reprimand is hardly an escalation of force.
A 13 year old gaining control of a loaded, ready to use firearm is a very serious matter regardless of whether he gains that control with full knowledge and intent, or even just goofing around not fully realizing what he is doing--though I hasten to add that by 13 any person not suffering from some mental development disability should be as capable of understanding why not to grab a firearm as he capable of understanding why not to jump in front of a moving automobile.
Hank, you cannot logically recognize the danger involved in a person--any person including a 13 year old--getting control of another's firearm and thus suggest that retention holsters be legally mandated for OC and then turn around and act as if the attempt (overt and knowing or somewhat ignorant) to gain control of that firearm is so benign as to not justify at least a slapped hand and a verbal reprimand.
So long as we are playing around with "what ifs", we might just as well ask "what if the OP had noticed someone getting too close to his gun, had given a verbal command to back off, but the person kept trying to touch or grab the gun?" Then what? Run away? Respond with some degree of physical force to physically prevent access to the firearm? Or allowed continued access because the person reaching for the gun appears to be younger than whatever magical age you think justifies some physical response?
Either retention of our firearms justifies some minimum physical response or it doesn't. Which is it?
To draw an analogy, while I use a retention holster while OCing, I would no more rely wholly upon that holster to safeguard my firearm than I would rely upon my firearm's built in safeties (manual and automatic) to prevent it from firing. At the end of the day, I, and I alone an responsible to make sure that the trigger doesn't get pulled unless I fully intend for my firearm to go "bang." In like manner, at the end of the day, whatever mechanical devices I may have employed to assist me, I remain responsible to do all I can and must to assure that my firearm doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
Charles
Last edited:
JoeSparky
Centurion
And to amplify what Charles has said above....
Who knows what the intent was with the gun grab? Was the "grabber" intending to use the newly acquired firearm in a felonious assault upon the gun owner? In this particular described situation maybe not, BUT JUST HOW MANY 10-13 year olds are ALREADY HEAVILY INVOLVED IN GANG ACTIVITY?
From my perspective---- ANY attempt to forcibly disarm me by someone other than a KNOWN LEO will be met with WHATEVER degree of force is needed to prevent the firearm from leaving my possession--- up to and including lethal force if the situation justifies it.
If a hand slap and a verbal reprimand is sufficient (my one and only experience to date-- related earlier in this forum (I believe)) then great, if more force is needed then more force will be applied!
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Gee, a law of physics fits real well here!
Who knows what the intent was with the gun grab? Was the "grabber" intending to use the newly acquired firearm in a felonious assault upon the gun owner? In this particular described situation maybe not, BUT JUST HOW MANY 10-13 year olds are ALREADY HEAVILY INVOLVED IN GANG ACTIVITY?
From my perspective---- ANY attempt to forcibly disarm me by someone other than a KNOWN LEO will be met with WHATEVER degree of force is needed to prevent the firearm from leaving my possession--- up to and including lethal force if the situation justifies it.
If a hand slap and a verbal reprimand is sufficient (my one and only experience to date-- related earlier in this forum (I believe)) then great, if more force is needed then more force will be applied!
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Gee, a law of physics fits real well here!
boyscout399
Regular Member
+1 The force was most definitely NOT started by you but by the teenage gun grabber. You used a reasonable amount of justified force. That use of justified force would not justify the father's use of force against you because most states only allow use of force to prevent non-justified force, since the force you applied was justified and reasonable, the father would not be authorized to use any force against you and therefore you WOULD be justified to use force to prevent his unjustfied force.
devildoc5
Regular Member
see this is just one of the reasons why "people" come up with the "dont use a thigh rig it looks too jack-bootish and is too easy to grab your gun."
What they are failing to realize is that this is something that is multifaceted (big word I know :lol: )
1. It is what 90% of all troops are training with/deploying with in today's current war(s), thus making them EXTREMELY proficient and confident in them.
2. It is honestly EASIER to apply downward force with a thigh rig and it even lowers your center of gravity when you do (remember all those football days of getting lower than the other guy???)
3. At least in my case it is a holster that I have used for well over 6 years now (military time mostly with a LITTLE bit of OC time) I know every little detail about it and where it is and what it is and how to operate it and how to employ it. Those of you that use a belt holster or IWB or paddle holster or shoulder holster can you say the same? Sure I can practice and practice and practice and AFTER a few YEARS become as proficient with another holster as I am with my thigh rig, but in the mean time should I just accept the "learning curve" and hope I don't have to engage any hostile too quickly? Or PRAY that I can get my pistol into play in time? Or even pray that my muscle memory WON'T kick in in the heat of the moment and that I will REMEMBER where my pistol is holstered?
That honestly seems like to much hoping and praying for a realist such as myself.
I believe the OP did a good job, I myself have had to swat one or two kids hands away from my firearm (the first time the dad spanked his rear end till it turned red in front of god and everybody then placed him in the cart and told him if he moved again he would get an a$$ whooping twice as bad as the one he just got) Second time was out side my apartments and the dad just yelled at the kid and sent him to his room (second kid was 5 years old!) Someone of that age I MIGHT have "flat-backed" and told someone to call the cops. At that age they KNOW what they are doing! They know what a gun is and what it CAN be used for. No tip-toeing through the tulips with someone of that age/supposed maturity...
What they are failing to realize is that this is something that is multifaceted (big word I know :lol: )
1. It is what 90% of all troops are training with/deploying with in today's current war(s), thus making them EXTREMELY proficient and confident in them.
2. It is honestly EASIER to apply downward force with a thigh rig and it even lowers your center of gravity when you do (remember all those football days of getting lower than the other guy???)
3. At least in my case it is a holster that I have used for well over 6 years now (military time mostly with a LITTLE bit of OC time) I know every little detail about it and where it is and what it is and how to operate it and how to employ it. Those of you that use a belt holster or IWB or paddle holster or shoulder holster can you say the same? Sure I can practice and practice and practice and AFTER a few YEARS become as proficient with another holster as I am with my thigh rig, but in the mean time should I just accept the "learning curve" and hope I don't have to engage any hostile too quickly? Or PRAY that I can get my pistol into play in time? Or even pray that my muscle memory WON'T kick in in the heat of the moment and that I will REMEMBER where my pistol is holstered?
That honestly seems like to much hoping and praying for a realist such as myself.
I believe the OP did a good job, I myself have had to swat one or two kids hands away from my firearm (the first time the dad spanked his rear end till it turned red in front of god and everybody then placed him in the cart and told him if he moved again he would get an a$$ whooping twice as bad as the one he just got) Second time was out side my apartments and the dad just yelled at the kid and sent him to his room (second kid was 5 years old!) Someone of that age I MIGHT have "flat-backed" and told someone to call the cops. At that age they KNOW what they are doing! They know what a gun is and what it CAN be used for. No tip-toeing through the tulips with someone of that age/supposed maturity...
HankT
State Researcher
I think that what you've "amply demonstrated' is a propensity for strawman arguments.
No one suggested restricting firearms or establishing a dress code. Those issues are non-relevant.
What was asserted was that professional organizations have, over the years, proved and institutionalized the retention holster model. Because of its efficacy.
That technology is standard safety equipement now.
To require it for citizen OCing would be effective, beneficial and would not infringe anyone's 2A rights. No "infringement." It would be included in the rubric of "reasonable firearms regulation." No big deal.
devildoc5
Regular Member
Just out of curiosity where EXACTLY in the 2A does it state "reasonable firearms regulation?"
The answer is no where. End of story. No argument needed...
HankT
State Researcher
Huh? Why does it have to be IN the 2nd Amendment?
Another strawman...
Keep 'em coming ...
Last edited:
devildoc5
Regular Member
Wow dude, never mind, apparently you are of the opinion that we should all have damn chips in ourselves and the government can control every aspect of our lives...
Perhaps something along the lines of the Matrix would be acceptable to you?
You are ridiculous and pathetic in your attempts to rationalize everything...:banghead:
Doug Huffman
Banned
Put Henrietta TG in your iggy_list and it will go away. Been there, done that, used it for TP.
HankT
State Researcher
devildoc5 said:
Another strawman. A three-part strawman.
You're stuck on that rhetorical device, DD5. . .
HankT
State Researcher
devildoc5 said:
Missed this one.
Four...
utbagpiper
Banned
No, Hank. What I've demonstrated is that just because a police department has a policy relative to the carrying of firearms is not proof that such a policy should become a legal requirement for everyone. That is not a "strawman"; it is an analogy that demonstrates your failure to make your point. Just because police have a policy does not automatically lead to any rational conclusion that non-police citizens should be subject to criminal penalties for failing to abide the terms of the policy. Even police who are subject to the policies requiring retention holsters (and dress codes and only carrying department approved equipment) do not face criminal penalties for violating those policies. So how can you rationally claim that such a policy lends any support at all to a legal requirement for citizens to use one type of equipment or another?
More importantly, and ironically, I never claimed that you suggested that police requirements about dress code or which gun can be carried be imposed as law. For you to claim I did is, in fact, a sterling example of the very logical fallacy you claimed I used: a straw man.
HankT said:
Hank, are you actually aware of what a "strawman" is? It is to impart to your opponent an argument he did not make and to then defeat the false argument you've just put forth rather than addressing your opponent's real argument.
Nobody who gives any credence at all to the constitutionally enumerated right to own and carry firearms can possibly believe that noting constitutional limits on what statutory regulations can be imposed on RKBA is a "strawman" argument. In terms of logical fallacies, an off topic point might be a "red herring", but not a "strawman" unless someone imparts to you an argument you did not make.
Noting that the 2nd amendment guarantees and unqualified right to own and carry firearms, and thus your proposed and favored statute is constitutionally suspect is not off topic. And it clearly is not a "red herring."
Please try to be a little less argumentative, and a little more willing to consider the views of others.
I don't see anyone suggesting that using a retention holster while OCing is a bad idea. Quite the contrary, I believe everyone who has commented on that subject has made clear that they believe a retention holster is a very good idea. Regular training is also a very good idea. Obtaining and maintaining some degree of accuracy and proficiency are very good ideas. I happen to think that dressing as well as the occasion permits is a good idea. I think it is often a good idea to inform a police officer of the legal presence of firearms during traffic or other official stops. I think it is a great idea for reporters to be trained in objective, honest journalism; and for clergy to be knowledgeable about the subject matter they are preaching. I think it would be great if EVERY person who committed a real (IE malum in se) crime could be convicted and punished.
But we have this thing called the Constitution that has a bill of rights. And that document limits what can be legally required in all of the above cases. It is better for 10 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted; and we some very specific rights about search and seizure, being forced to testify, etc that make it impossible to convict everyone. The 1st amendment rightly limits what can be legally required before a man exercises his right to publish or to preach.
And under a proper understanding of the 2nd amendment, there simply is no such thing as "reasonable gun control". As a matter of political pragmatism, I will often accept a less than perfect law if it moves in the direction of more freedom. If you show me a jurisdiction where OC is currently illegal and the only way to get it legalized is to require a retention holster, I might well support that law. But why should I accept a law that moves me backwards?
Beyond that, most of us tend to be generally in favor of more personal freedom rather than less, generally. Utah does not require those over the age of 18 to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Obviously, helmets are a good idea. I won't ride without one. But I very much oppose legal mandates to do so. I oppose mandatory seat belt laws on exactly the same basis as I would oppose a law mandating a "proper" amount of sleep, exercise, or "proper" diet.
With or without retention holsters you are hard pressed to find any kind of pattern of problems with OC'd firearms being taken away from their owners (at least by anyone other than sworn LEOs presumably acting in their official capacity).
Not every good idea needs to be a legal mandate. And not every disagreement over laws is a personal assault against you. Please stop acting like you've been personally wronged or that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally or otherwise inferior.
Bottom line is that Utah does not require retention holsters and it is very unlikely we ever will. It is also very unlikely that you will ever personally do anything to affect Utah laws one way or the other. So offer your good idea and then accept it with a modicum of maturity if others happen to disagree.
Charles
YoZUpZ
Regular Member
I'm not quite sure where you live Hank (I'm guessing a nicer area as you look at younger teenagers as "innocent"). I've lived in Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Portland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Camden, and Washington DC, and I have seen people much younger than 13-14 (8-10 years old)shoot and try to kill other people... Heck, I've seen a group of 8-12 year olds walking down the streets of Orlando in Pine Hills (called Crime Hills by the locals) carrying shotguns.
West Valley isn't known as the best part of Utah (probably one of the worst), so if I felt someone grab my gun, you bet I'd do something. If the parent gave me crap, then I'd threaten to press charges for robbery, if not armed robbery...
As for the OP, try to be more SA, if I'm in a line or a crowded area, I'm constantly checking my wallet and brushing/situating my arm in a position where I can feel my gun, which I understand can be difficult to do with a drop leg holster/thigh holster, but if you are carrying (especially open carrying), make sure you know whats going on around you, especially if you feel someone touching you/tugging on your pants, etc...
Last edited:
boyscout399
Regular Member
A retention holster would be a restriction, albeit a small one. First off, retention holsters TEND to be more expensive than non-retention holsters (even if only by a small margin) So requiring retention holsters is a cost increase in exercising your right. Also, retention holsters are slower to draw from than non-retention holsters (even if only by a small amount) so it may restrict your right to defend yourself. Saying it's NOT an infringement is silly. You could argue that it's a small infringement. You could argue that it may be a reasonable infringement. But you can't argue that it is NO infringement.
I personally believe that ALL regulations involving firearms are an infringement of some sort on the 2A. Some may be reasonable, many are not, but all ARE infringements.
You say "no one suggested establishing a dress code or restricting firearms"
You basically said earlier that you support regulation that you must wear a retention holster. Isn't that establishing a dress code? You must wear X do do Y is a dress code. You said you support regulation that says you must wear this item whenever you carry a firearm. You must do X in order to do Y is a restriction.
Also, as I argued before, the cop, armed guard, armored truck personnel, military are only required to wear retention while on duty. It's a part of the requirements of their employment, not part of a law. The employer can make any sort of requirements they want as conditions of employment. A citizen OCing is subject to the law, not subject to employment requirements and it's none of the laws business how I choose to carry my firearm.
Again, I support advocating for retention holsters, I support using retention holsters, I support training retention holsters, I support suggesting retention holsters, I support education about the benefits of retention holsters and the downsides of non-retention holsters. I just don't support mandating or compelling someone to use something that they don't prefer to use after they've been given the facts. It's their choice how much risk they want to subject themselves to, not the gov's.
Walt_Kowalski
Regular Member
Wow.. which team are you playing for?
I come from a state that does not mandate a retention holster to OC. I use one because I prefer it.. but it should not be mandated.
Be careful when you 'make a law to require' a retention holster...
Hypothetical situation...
You are only one step away from having a a law that requires you to have a level 1000 retention holder with padlock. ..now.. hold on there a sec Mr. attacker.. let me find my key to unlock my holster.
boyscout399
Regular Member
The Armed pilot program DOES require a padlock on the holster hahaha. That holster has caused a bunch of NDs on airplanes too because the lock triggers the firearm.
Vegassteve
Regular Member
You are a threat to my rights. You are the one who is more than willing to let others chip away at my rights. You are a danger to our country.